Skip to main content

Full text of "The Letters Of Horace Walpole Vol I"

See other formats

expected to be put off, as Mr. Pulteney could not attend the House; his only daughter was dying—they say she is dead. But an affair of consequence to them, and indeed to the nation in general, roused all their rage, and drove them to determine on the last violences. I told you in my last, that the new Admiralty was named, with a mixture of Tories; that is, it was named by my Lord of Argyll; but the King flatly put his negative on Sir John Cotton. They said he was no Tory now, (and, in truth, he yesterday in the House professed himself a Whig,) and that there were no Tories left in the nation. The King replied, ' that might be; but he was determined to stand by those who had set him and his family upon the throne.' This refusal enraged them so much, that they declared they would force him, not only to turn out all the old ministry, but the new too, if he wished to save Sir E. and others of his friends; and that, as they supposed he designed to get the great bills passed, and then prorogue the Parliament, they were determined to keep back some of the chief bills, and sit all the summer, examining into the late administration. Accordingly, yesterday, in a most full House, Lord LimerickJ (who last year, seconded the famous motion4) moved for a committee to examine into the conduct of the last twenty years, and was seconded by Sir John St. Aubin3. In short, (for I have not time to tell you the debate at length,) we divided, between eight and nine, when there was not a man of our party that did not expect to lose it by at least fifteen or twenty, but, to our great amazement, and their as great confusion, we threw out the motion, by a majority
LETTER 67.—l William Hamilton, Lord Viscount Limerick. Walpole.— James (not William) Hamilton, Viscount Limerick, or. Earl of Clan-brassil, 1756; d. 1768.
2 For removing Sir Eobert Walpole. Walpole.
s Sir John St. Aubyn (1696-1744), third Baronet, of Clowance, Cornwall; M.P. for Cornwall, 1722-44. He was active in opposition to Walpole, but declined to preside over the Committee appointed to examine into his official acts.